Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 11



Category:Dominicans

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Members of the Dominican Order as this is the most reasonable proposal. It is not known if all articles in this category are actually those of friars. Category:Friars of the Dominican Order can be created later if necessary. Ruslik_ Zero 14:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Dominicans to Category:Members of the Dominican Order or Category:Dominicans (order)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm not sure that the current name is sufficiently disambiguated from the other meanings of "Dominicans", which would be and . I would have thought the nominated category would be a disambiguation page with three possible meanings, similar to what is currently found at . Either of the proposed names would work for me, or we can keep the current name if users think there is no problem currently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I agree with G O: rather than salting it, I think that a DAB category would be much more helpful to editors and readers. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Members of the Dominican Order, to allow some disambiguation. Lots of categories in this area are highly ambiguous.  This search throws up lots of categories withoutr much consistency:  is a dab page, but  and  refer to the Dominican Republic. However,  and  refer to the religious order. It seems to me that the unbracketed "Dominican Order" is likely to be the neatest way of disambigauting the subcats. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to whatever you kids want to, as long as it's changed. It's definitely ambiguous at present.  postdlf (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering some of the proposals that are offered in this area, giving us carte blanche to rename this as we please might be dangerous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Go nuts. Let's see what you've got.  postdlf (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Members of the Dominican Order in line with main article Dominican Order. Category:Trinitarians is similarly ambiguous.- choster (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See also related discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 12. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename somehow, per nom, though Category:Dominican friars should be considered - the nuns should all be in Category:Dominican nuns already, leaving only friars here . Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Dominican friars or Category:Friars of the Dominican Order and salt. One of the parents is Category:Roman Catholic friars so this should be a safe change.  I think the second is the less ambiguous name so that may be preferred. We need to salt this to prevent it's future use in some form to recreate this problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can support either of those proposals too. Rather than salting how about just changing it to a DAB category like Category:Dominican people? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. Johnbod (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Johnbod wants to be salted? Yikes.
 * I can live with that. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Dominican friars" is not a noticeably better expression, as it could be interpreted as "Friars from the Dominican Republic" (or Dominica). While there is no by-nationality tree for members of religious orders, the casual reader would not know that (and if the casual reader did, s/he would also be in a position to discern Category:Dominicans in the first place). I also think we need to provide a format for umbrella categories, as not every order will have a sufficiently large number of articles to justify separate categorization for friars/monks, priests, nuns, or lay members.- choster (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but Category:Friars of the Dominican Order is better. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if Category:Friars of the Dominican Order were a subcategory of Category:Members of the Dominican Order. Particularly with large families of orders like the Franciscans, we cannot assume all members will be priests, nuns, monks/friars, or lay persons.- choster (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a wider renaming of members of religious orders? Instead of "Fooian nuns/monks/friars/priests" we could have "Nuns/monks/friars/priests of the Fooian order". Unambiguous, and still quite short. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For some, like Category:Trinitarians, but one always has to be careful they were all priests, monks or friars. Jesuits can be priests or brothers, or I suppose drop-outs from the training. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you propose to allow one-article categories for the sole member of a lay Franciscan order or the sole article for a Servite nun, I think we should retain the umbrella categories, subcategorizing as called for, as has been the practice to date.- choster (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't write at all clearly. I meant retain the umbrella categories as "Members of the Fooian order", and have the sub-cats named "Nuns/monks/friars/priests of the Fooian order. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I struggle to decide which rename is the better, but a rename it should be. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If a rename is necessary I would suggest Categhory:Dominicans (religious order) as being unambiguous and also consistent with other members of Category:Members of Christian religious orders. The category includes Category:Dominican nuns as a subcategory so Category:Dominican Friars would not be a correct rename. Cjc13 (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a rename to Category:Dominican Friars would need some cleanup, but letting a bot do the renames is a lot easier that forcing editors to manually do the renames. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Friars of the Dominican Order (with Category:Members of the Dominican Order as a parent category) if someone (or a WikiProject) is willing to check (not necessarily right away, but eventually) the 400+ articles in the category to confirm that they were or are friars; otherwise, rename to Category:Members of the Dominican Order per BHG and choster. We cannot be sure, without checking each page in the category, that none of the people in this category are nuns, "active Sisters, [or] lay persons affiliated with the order (formerly known as tertiaries, now Lay or Secular Dominicans" (quoted from Dominican Order). -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The correct name for the order is Order of Preachers and that is the name used first in the lead of that article despite it sitting at Dominican Order. A more "correct" move would be to Category:Members of the Order of Preachers, IMO.  This move would have the advantage of avoiding any confusion with the various countries etc, though it might be more obscure for the less informed.  A move to Category:Members of the Dominican Order would bring the cat in line with the present name of the main article, however  --Jubilee♫ clipman  06:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Stone circles

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The merger of Category:Stone circles in Shropshire is per WP:OC. It contains only two articles, and since the circles were all built several thousand years ago, I don't think that there is much prospect of more being built soon. The merge target contains only 15 articles, so there is no need to split it by county. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: rename/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming
 * Category:Irish stone circles to Category:Stone circles in Ireland
 * Category:English stone circles to Category:Stone circles in England
 * Category:Scottish stone circles to Category:Stone circles in Scotland
 * Propose merging
 * Category:Stone circles in Shropshire to Category:Stone circles in England and Category:Archaeological sites in Shropshire
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename & merge all. The renaming is to better match the convention of the various parent categories, such as, , , ,  etc ... all per convention of the grandparent category.


 * Support all, per nom. Occuli (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support renames Naming fits the "blah sites in blahland" structure of the parent categores and avoids inference of the peoples who built them. AllyD (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That historical inference point is an important one. These structures were all built long long before the concepts of England or Ireland or Scotland. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support nom. There are very few stone circles in Shopshire, so that the category could never be well populated.  Peterkingiron (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Districts of the Constitutional Province of Callao

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Districts of the Callao Region. Ruslik_ Zero 14:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Districts of the Constitutional Province of Callao to Category:Districts of Callao Region Category:Districts of the Callao Region
 * Nominator's rationale: Category:Districts of Peru is subcategorized by region first and by province second. Since the Constitutional Province of Callao is the only province in Callao Region (see Callao and Provinces of Peru), I think that the category should be at the level of the region. Also, as "Callao Region" is a proper noun and should not, therefore, be preceded by a definite article, I have dropped the "the" in the proposed name. If there is no objection to this second change, then I will nominate the approximately 200 similarly-titled Peru-related categories in the next day or two. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comments – I am not sure that the article on proper nouns is correct about 'the'. The wiktionary def of proper noun gives United Nations as an example, and I would expect 'United States of America' is another, and one does put a 'the' in front. (See eg within Category:Northland Region for a NZ example.) The other point seems to be that Callao, Callao Region and the Constitutional Province of Callao are the same thing ('co-terminous') so the usual procedure would be to rename to Category:Districts of Callao to match the article. Occuli (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the article does say that 'the' is generally unnecessary, not that it is always unnecessary, and there are certainly many exceptions (as you correctly point out). If there is no need for a change in this instance, then I am happy to leave the other categories as they are.
 * On the matter of consistency: the article Callao is primarily about the city, rather than the administrative Region, and despite the fact that the city, Constitutional Province, and Region are co-terminous, they are ultimately distinct political entities. Category:Districts of Callao suggests a scope that includes articles about districts (neighborhoods) of the city of Callao and deviates from the standard of Category:Districts of Peru, which is subdivided by Region. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * These are reasonable points. I agree that Category:Regions of Peru has subcats 'Foo Region' which generally have further subcats 'Districts of the Foo Region' and 'Provinces of the Foo Region' (and not 'Districts of the Province of ...'). I accordingly support a rename to Category:Districts of the Callao Region (with a 'the'). I personally would probably put a 'the' in but then I have never thought deeply about Peru, or what an Anglicised Peruvian might prefer. (I find there is also Callao District - Peruvians seem to be economical with words. Callao is a district of Callao in Callao, Callao.) Occuli (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There certainly does seem to be an above-average level of commitment to the name. :P
 * The situation with the name "Callao" is better, though, than with "Lima". Lima District is the city centre of Lima, which forms part of the Lima Metropolitan Area (the other part being... drumroll, please ... Callao!) and is located in Lima Province, which borders but is not part of Lima Region (in fact, it is the only Province that is not part of any Region). [[Image:Confused.png|16px]] -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I modified the nomination to include the 'the' as per Occuli's suggestion. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Provinces of the Callao Region

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: KEEP.  postdlf (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Provinces of the Callao Region to Category:Provinces of Peru
 * Nominator's rationale: The Callao Region of Peru contains only one province, the Constitutional Province of Callao (see Callao and Provinces of Peru). In light of this, and since the article Callao is already in Category:Callao Region, this added category layer seems to be unnecessary. On the other hand, its existence ensures that Category:Provinces of Peru contains subcategories for all 25 regions of Peru. (Category creator and WikiProject Peru notified using Template:Cfd-notify)
 * At this time, I am neutral, and merely want to bring the issue here for discussion. By the way, any thoughts as to whether articles about provinces of Peru should be categorized into the regional subcategories only or into both Category:Provinces of Peru and the regional subcategories? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep as part of a category structure as pointed out by the nominator. I think that the second argument outweighs the otherwise correct opposite argument. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indy 500 drivers

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Indy 500 drivers to Category:Indianapolis 500 drivers
 * Propose renaming Category:Indy 500 Rookie of the Year to Category:Indianapolis 500 Rookies of the Year
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Spelling out "Indianapolis 500," and adding an "s" to "Rookie" per Category:NASCAR Rookies of the Year.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Abbreviations are usually best expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename to use full name.- choster (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support renaming both per nom. Gobonobo  T C 04:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Libertarian organisations

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete and merge Category:Libertarian think tanks by country with its subcategories as proposed. I think there is a reasonable consensus for this. Delete Category:Libertarian parties and organizations in the United States as there is nothing to merge—the category contains only one subcategory: Category: Libertarian organisations based in the United States, which can exist on its own. Keep Category:Libertarian organisations and Category:Libertarian think tanks. Ruslik_ Zero  17:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Propose deleting
 * libertarian think tanks by country

Propose merging
 * Category:Libertarian organisations to Category:Political organizations
 * Category:Libertarian think tanks to Category:Political and economic think tanks
 * Category:Libertarian think tanks based in Switzerland to Category:Think tanks based in Switzerland
 * Category:Libertarian think tanks based in the United Kingdom to Category:Think tanks based in the United Kingdom
 * Category:Libertarian think tanks based in the United States to Category:Think tanks based in the United States

Propose deleting Similar categories have recently been deleted for other political ideologies which have fuzzy and shifting definitions, because they do not allow objective tests for inclusion. See discussions for Conservative organisations, American progressive organizations (warning: huge discussion), American liberal organizations (warning: huge discussion) , Progressive think tanks, Liberal think tanks (discussion still open). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Libertarian parties and organizations in the United States to Category:Libertarian parties and Category:Political parties in the United States (this is a hybrid category spanning the parties tree and the organisations tree, so the articles will need to be manually recategorised, or alternatively the category could be purged before the bots start work)
 * Nominator's rationale: Libertarianism is too broad a concept to make for a coherent method of categorising. It includes a huge variety of view from pro-property to anti-property, from pro-state to anarchist. In practice, the use of these categories on wikipedia illustrates the vagueness of the term, because it is being used in many cases to for organisations which could also be described under classic liberalism. Fuzzy categories like can mislead readers and provide a tool for POV pushers.  Their existence can also set up sincere NPOV editors for disputes, as they try to apply some of the many different understandings of Libertarianism.

As above, note that I do not advocate deleting all political organization subcats, only those with fuzzy and subjective definitions. We can still categorise by geography and by issue. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment While seeing merits in the arguments above and in prior similar discussions, I'm also struck by the contradiction with the intent expressed in the information notices on both its current parent Category:Political organizations by ideology and grandparent Category:Political organizations (which is also the proposed direct upmerge target for Category:Libertarian organisations). So on the one hand, we have individual CfD upmerges out of specific political categories, on the other, the upmerge target category suggesting that subcategories are best practise. In addition, this upmerge would have consequences in partially depopulating Category:Political organizations by ideology. So I wonder, is the correct CfD one that encompasses the future of the full Category:Political organizations and its underlying categories? AllyD (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did consider a broader deletion of Category:Political organizations by ideology. However, it seems to me that some ideologies may be tightly-enough defined to be useable in categorisation (e.g. monarchism seems at first glance to be reasonably clear-cut), so a blanket deletion would be too crude: it's better to carefully examine each ideological label in turn.
 * As to the category notices, I don't see any conflict with this nomination. It's obviously pointless to categorise any organisation directly in, but that doesn't mean that nay organisation has to be in an ideological category. With , there are trees of sub-categories by type, by issue and by country, and nothing in this nomination alters the principle  that article should be in one or more of those sub-cats rather than directly in .  The articles which are merged there should be dispersed as appropriate after the merger. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Ideology is the primary defining characteristic for *political* organizations. So the rule of thumb should be that political organizations go in a subcategory of Category:Political organizations by ideology. Thus Libertarian political organizations should go in Category:Libertarian political organizations, and so on. Maurreen (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ideology is not necessarily the defining characteristic of a political organisation. Plenty of politcal organisations exist to promote an unideological stance on a particular issue, or to represent a particular ethnic, religious, social, economic or other interest group. But for those who are ideological, what exactly are the criteria for inclusion in the Libertarain category? How can there be an objective test? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion would be those that identify themselves as Libertarian. If not that, at least those that have the word "Libertarian" in their name. Deletion of political organization subcats would make Category:Political organizations hard to navigate. Maurreen (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's only going to be those which self-identify as "libertarian", then there'd have to be a big purge of the categories. But even self-identification doesn't resolve the question of whether these organisations mean the same thing by the label, and how they adopt that label. Is it enough for one of their spokespeople to us the word? Does it need to be part of their constitution?
 * I do not oppose deleting Category:Libertarian think tanks by country (into Category:Libertarian think tanks). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support deleting Category:Libertarian parties and organizations in the United States into Category:Libertarianism in the United States or into Category:Libertarian organizations in the United States. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, as I wrote in my main "oppose" section, I do support this proposal, with articles moved to appropriate of two categories. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Category:Libertarian organizations in the United States rather Category:Libertarian organizations based in the United States (categorized in Category:Libertarianism in the United States, Category:Libertarian organisations, Category:Organizations based in the United States). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose deleting Category:Libertarian organisations and Category:Libertarian think tanks. "In practice, the use of these categories on wikipedia illustrates the vagueness of the term, because it is being used in many cases to for organisations which could also be described under classic liberalism." (BrownHairedGirl) Actually most of (near all) organizations currently included in Category:Libertarian organisations are "classical liberal" (Category:Libertarian parties currently include Category:Classical liberal parties and Category:Libertarianism currently include Category:Classical liberalism), pro-property, pro-capitalism, anti-state, anti-socialist, anti-communist, and support "free enterprise, low taxes, individual liberty and privatisation of public services." So Category:Libertarian organisations look clearly defined for me, and I think that those categories are usefull. Would you mind of renaming (into something like Free-market anarchist libertarian organizations or Anarcho-capitalist organizations) instead of deleting? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a definition, but it excludes whole strands of libertarianism. The proposed renames tighten things a bit, but we are still caught with a problem of where the boundaries are, and who assesses them, so we are still we are still left with the same problem of trying to make boxes out of concepts which do not have well-defined edges. That's the subjectivity deprecated in WP:OC. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your scruple to label organisations as libertarian. The Libertarian Party of Canada is not a libertarian organisation? The Free Market Center is not a libertarian organisation? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you plan deleting Category:Neo-Nazi organizations and Category:Anarchist organizations ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is Category:Anarchist organizations for Confederación Nacional del Trabajo, and Category:Libertarian organisations for Free State Project, Bruno Leoni Institute, Libertarianz. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you plan deleting Category:Libertarian parties and Category:Libertarian books ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want to delete the whole Category:Libertarianism and its sub-categories? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Category:Libertarianism is a valuable grouping of articles about the idea of libertarianism, and the variations on it. But the further it diverges from being a grouping of ideas and tries to label people and groups, the less well it works. I haven't looked yet a, but I suspect that it probably suffers from similar fuzziness to this category, which is well-summarised below by Good Olfactory. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge, per nom, largely per the previous discussions to delete organisations by amorphous political one-liner positions. These labels are invented as a shorthand that is used to both build support and to denigrate, but they are problematic when applied in an all-or-nothing fashion in categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you notified User talk:Bastin and Portal talk:Libertarianism ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just notified both. Debresser (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As stated already, the primary defining characteristic of any political organisation or political party is its ideology.  To remove categorisation by ideology seriously undermines the ability of both users and editors to navigate by that core theme.  The rationale that it 'provide[s] a tool for POV pushers' is undermined by the fact that one can request a reference for any inclusion in the category.  The term 'libertarian' is used widely to describe organisations or parties of this sort; it is not a term used exclusively by advocates, but also by reliable sources, which can be cited.  That is how Wikipedia substantiates any of its assertions.  If an article states in the text that it is libertarian, and that is referenced by a reliable source, there is no reason for a category not to exist. Bastin 17:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bastin, I disagree with both of your core points: that ideology is the primary characteristic of political organisations, that reliable sources solve the subjectivity problem.
 * It's all very well pointing to a ref in a reliable source, but the source cannot assert such a thing as objective fact, merely as a judgement against the source's interpretation of the word "libertarian". Since two different sources can quite legitimately take different views on the meaning of the word, the category is unavoidably subjective. This problem has already been raised at Portal talk:Libertarianism, where a disgruntled editor quotes Chomsky's comment about how the American view of libertarianism is radically different from that of the rest of the world.
 * This all makes even less sense than categorising by gallons, when one editor uses the U.S. liquid gallon and the other the imperial gallon, because at least in that case there are two clearly-defined measures (or three, if we also include the U.S. dry gallon). In this case, none of the competing definitions has a hard edge.
 * Many non-party political organisations are not in any way ideological, they are single-issue campaign groups looking for a particular set of results on a particular set of issues. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is the largest membership organisation in the UK, with a powerful and well co-ordinated lobbying machine. Ideology? None: it's a single-issue campaign.
 * Other political organisations may be looking for a wider set of changes in society, but that doesn't mean that they are pure products of an ideological laboratory. Parties and movements are usually a mixture of various ideas, various sectoral interests, all refined through the conditions of the society they operate in.
 * So I'm afraid that it is demonstrably false to assert that the "primary defining characteristic of any political organisation or political party is its ideology". Plenty of political parties are ideologically footloose, or are are very broad coalitions. Take Fianna Fáil, the largest party in Ireland: refs to reliable sources in that article describe its ideologies as Irish republicanism, Conservatism, Centrism, and Populism ... while its then leader Bertie Ahern said in 2004 "I'm one of the last socialists left in Irish politics". (And while we're on Ireland, look at the Progressive Democrats, don't forget the Progressive Democrats, an Irish political party which combined social liberalism with economic classical liberalism, but whose position in the Irish political spectrum led them to being seen as "conservative". The wikipedia article calls them "conservative liberal" (with a supporting ref), so there we have it all in one: a single organisation which is progressive, liberal and conservative. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is absurd to think that I was referring to single-issue groups. Only ideological groups belong in the category.  For ideological political groups, which is the other sort of prominent and prevalent political organisation, the primary characteristic is the ideology that they advance.  To suggest that it is immaterial is ridiculous.
 * What you think about their ideology is irrelevant under Wikipedia policy. Some groups, such as the Cato Institute, are routinely - in fact, pretty universally - referred to as 'libertarian'.  So much so, in fact, that newspaper articles will introduce them in all instances as 'a libertarian think tank'.  To a greater or lesser extent, so too are Adam Smith Institute, Institute of Economic Affairs, Campaign for Liberty, etc.  There are multiple citations, proving that there is a broad consensus amongst reliable sources, which may be cited to verify the statements in the article.  Categorisation reflects the content of the article; if a statement in the article can be supported by references, so can categories.  This whole '[a] source cannot assert such a thing as objective fact' straw man ignores policy.  It doesn't have to be objective fact.
 * Why have you concluded that the Bertie Ahern's opinion matters? Or that the Progressive Democrats were 'progressive'?  Their own self-identification is not a reliable source.  Furthermore, you'll note that articles can belong to more than one category.  An organisation that promotes (say) libertarian economics can belong to both a category for libertarian think tanks and economics think tanks.  Organisations that are described by large numbers of reliable sources as variously conservative and libertarian can also belong to both, because the odds are that they straddle that divide and therefore are relevant to both. Bastin 00:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a biggie: you have refined the proposition from ideology being defining for "any political organisation or political party" to being defined only for those which prioritise ideology. That's a radical reduction in the scope of the category.
 * It's also a bit misleading to say that "if a statement in the article can be supported by references, so can categories". First, categories are not themselves referenced, but more importantly categories are a binary choice: an article is either in a category or out of it, with no scope for any of the nuancing which is possible in article text. Suppose an article say, with references, "X described itself in the 1980s as 'libertarian',{ref} but dropped the term from its literature in the 1990s{ref}. Jones{ref} observed that throughout its history X might be better described as a populist anti-establishment coalition, while Smith{ref} concluded that 'populist conservative' was a more appropriate label." That sort of divergence of view is common in political science, and you seem to anticipate it by suggesting that "Organisations that are described by large numbers of reliable sources as variously conservative and libertarian can also belong to both" ... but they can't, because we already deleted.
 * Finally, note the core policy WP:NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". Using the category system to apply ideological labels removes the attribution from those "facts about opinions", and recasts them as objective facts. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I oppose for many of same reasons above. Note that the Libertarianism article quotes a number of sources that dispute Chomsky's comments, which are a more specific than characterized above, so let's not let an "argument from authority" or an "If you like chomsky vote my way" statement. I have a feeling a year down the road people will be re-creating many of these deleted categories - certainly for liberal, conservative, and libertarian. So this just seems like a real waste of time to me.  However, I would agree that "Libertarian parties and organizations in the United States" is overly broad and its contents should go either under Category:Libertarian organisations or Category:Libertarian parties. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So you agree that there is disagreement about what term means. That reinforces my point that simply saying "rely on refs in reliable sources" doesn't solve the scope or inclusion problems. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I do not agree with you, except on that last minor point. I'm saying there is enough commonality within all forms of libertarianism to put them all in the same category. (Differences over whether no state or small state or pro or anti-"capitalism" is best way to liberty do not tarnish the agreement on the goal of liberty.) People can read Libertarianism article if they need clarification. (And even Liberalism and Conservatism, which do include a wider spectrum, have subcategories that show how different ideologies share the term. Keeping categories makes that clear to readers. Deleting them leads to confusion.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The goal of liberty" is a rather mom-and-apple-pie concept; most politicians play some sort of lip-service to it, and it was a regular theme of George W. Bush, tho he used the word"freedom". Differences over whether no state or small state or pro or anti-"capitalism" are not some sort of minor detail; they are the stuff of major political faultlines, and for much of the 20th century pro or anti-"capitalism" was the major political divide in much of the world. The comparison with Liberalism and Conservatism is indeed appropriate: categories for Liberal and Conservative organisations have been deleted. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then to expand, they share the goal of liberty through the minimization or elimination of the state. (Capitalists have minarchism, socialists have libertarian municipalism.) I haven't met any antiproperty anarchists who want to set up a state to stop others from being capitalists (though they'd obviously oppose pollution and other forms of aggression). And no capitalists who care if people are as communist as they want to be in their own communities as long as they don't force it on others. So it's not ideologically that big a difference. (And at the deepest psychological level a dispute between some guys who don't have much money and some guys who hope to make a lot of money, about who deserves the best women, but don't get me started on patriarchy and economics).  CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to be advocating a definition of libertarianism which includes anarchism, and that's on top of the classical liberals who already populate a lot of this category. The result would a ginormous group of articles which would include everything from the unfettered-free-market advocates of the Adam Smith Institute to working-class smash-the-state anti-capitalist anarchists such as Emma Goldman. That's a bizarrely wide grouping, which applies the same label to grouos which would be sworn enemies. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The main Libertarianism article only talks about those anarchists who IDENTIFY as "libertarian" for whatever reason, including especially left libertarians and libertarian socialists. The Libertarianism (disambiguation) page has long recognized that "anarchist" and "libertarian" can be synonymous. You seem to be the main person here who keeps lobbying to make a separation which is more distinct than exists in the real world and in WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not the one trying to make a separation!
 * On the contrary, what I have been arguing from the outset is that the fuzziness and overlap of this example of ideological terminology makes for very poor categories which fail WP:OC. By all means, discuss and explain the the ideological influences and positions in the text of the article, but don't try to use these terms as one-word ideological labels. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think at this point it is clear you only have support for deleting one category and moving its contents to two other categories. So I don't think there's much more to say. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Deletion discussions are not a vote, so the closure does not depend on counting heads. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cf here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "Cf" means even after three years on Wikipedia, so it helps to explicate your initialisms. Anyway, the link was to User:Good_Olfactory/CFD. While I agree that left, right and centrist are overly vague, I think conservative, liberal and especially libertarian have more specific meanings. If you want to talk about vague, the proposed categories are so vague as to be meaningless, i.e.: Category:Political organizations, Category:Political and economic think tanks, Category:Think tanks based in Switzerland, etc. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This nomination does not create any new categories. If you think that there is scope for renaming, merging or deleting any of the existing categories, please feel free to open a discussion on them: instructions are at WP:CFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Cf" is not a Wikipedia-exclusive initialism. It is an (I thought relatively well understood) initialism that stands for the Latin for "confer", which essentially means "compare", or "see". Dictionaries can come in handy when you see something you don't understand. Or you could just check Cf. (It's also the chemical symbol for Californium, but I assumed that users would not think I was referring to this, given the context. It appears that I have maybe assumed too much about some other users.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite an impressive list. So I guess Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. organizations are next because they all have so many subdivisions its meaningless to have them in such categories. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Do you guys intend to go all through Category:Libertarianism (and conservative and liberal) and delete all the subcategories under similar rationales to:  Libertarianism is too broad a concept to make for a coherent method of categorising. It includes a huge variety of view from pro-property to anti-property, from pro-state to anarchist. In practice, the use of these categories on wikipedia illustrates the vagueness of the term... etc... CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on who you are referring to. Who is "you guys"? I'm not the nominator here, and I'm not working in tandem with anyone. I have no master plan; I doubt anyone else does. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just looking randomly at five or six of the categories deleted I saw both Good Ol'factory and BrownHairedGirl and assumed you were doing so. But also saw a lot of other names and frankly decided the issue not worth spending more time on. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Understandable. We're both just compulsive category editors, I think. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But don't let ones compulsions destroy the usefulness of the category system, flawed as it may be... CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Carol, I think that if you looked more carefully at the huge extent of Good Olfactory's contributions to the category system, you would see just how inappropriate it is to suggest that he is destroying anything. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. A related category, Category:Libertarian weblogs, was merged into Category:Political weblogs more than two years ago based on the same rationale. Please see the (much shorter) discussion here: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_26. -- skylights76 (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Findhorn community

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: do not delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * findhorn community


 * Nominator's rationale: The category is an odd one out in Category:Ecovillages, it is a collection of articles that have some passing connection with the Findhorn community and having this category is giving undue balance to but one of 1000's of ecovillages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Findhorn Foundation situated in the Findhorn Ecovillage has been an important spiritual community since 1972, and NOT just an eco-village! Numerous notable people have been connected with the community in the past and present, so the above category is NOT about the eco-village, rather the spiritual community! --Ekabhishektalk 09:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not given any rationale for retaining the category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

However, there may be scope for renaming the category, because its current name does not match the head article. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, because there is no valid reason for deletion. The nominator's rationale completely misunderstands the purpose of categories, which is to facilitate navigation between related articles, not to function as some sort of "badge of honour" for a topic. (SeeCategorization, which says "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles".  serves exactly that purpose by grouping articles related to the Findhorn Foundation.


 * There are valid reasons for deletion and I feel that I have sufficient understanding of the categorisation system. You say categories are not some sort of "badge of honour" and I agree. However, the topic of a category should have a high degree of notability and I don't think the Findhorn community is of sufficient notability to have its own category. It is a case of overcategorisation. According to WP:OVERCAT a category should not have:
 * Non-defining or trivial characteristic
 * Subjective inclusion criterion
 * Arbitrary inclusion criterion
 * Trivial intersection
 * Narrow intersection
 * Small with no potential for growth
 * Mostly-overlapping categories
 * amongst other criteria. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I'll unpick this.
 * First, notability is irrelevant. very article is presumed to be notable at CFD: if anyone has doubts about the notability of article, there are processes such as AFD and PROD. Categories frequently group a large number of articles of relatively low notability, because the category works as a way of navigating between them, whilst highly notable topics may not have any directly related category.  That's why I said that your rationale "completely misunderstands the purpose of categories": the claim of undue prominence is irrelevant.
 * And now you have posted a list of the headings from WP:OC, without explaining why you think they are relevant here. That's probably just as well, because most of them are demonstrably irrelevant:
 * "Trivial intersection" and "Narrow intersection" are not relevant, because this is not an intersection category; it concerns only one attribute of a topic, not two.
 * "Small with no potential for growth" doesn't apply, because the category has 21 articles, which is more than big to escape WP:OC.
 * "Mostly-overlapping categories" doesn't apply, because doesn't overlap with any other category that I can see.
 * Given this flood of demonstrably inapplicable reasons, I'm afraid that it appears that these are all post-facto rationalisations of your main concern as stated in the nomination: that because is in, you think it's not fair for it to have a category when the others don't. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think his argument could best be paraphrased as Findhorn not having a defining relationship with those included in the category. No opinion on the merits of that argument.  postdlf (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite a liberal paraphrasing of all this every-sort-of-OC and undue prominence stuff :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It took a bit of filtering. postdlf (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the basis of Findhorn being a close to 40 year old institution - that alone is sufficient to have a category - as to whether that has anything to do with ecovillages or all the rest of what has been going on above - seems quite irrelevent SatuSuro 08:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There's no reason other ecovillages couldn't also have their own category. Gobonobo  T C 05:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:N&O

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:N&O to Category:The News & Observer
 * Nominator's rationale: To expand abbreviation and match parent article, The News & Observer. Surely I'm not the only one who had no idea what this stood for. — ξ xplicit  06:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK (Adding OK with category creator, myself.) Maurreen (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. I don't agree with expanding all abbreviations, but this one is far too obscure to keep, and the expanded version is still quite short. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per guideline to avoid abbreviations, and per main article. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Gobonobo  T C 05:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sex scandal figures

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Delete.עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * sex scandal figures


 * Nominator's rationale: I have serious concerns that this category should exist. Mainly WP:BLP concerns because it categorizes those that are within it as part of something which should be usually private, but thus has been made news, and I feel that it is highly inappropriate for the use of the category system in order to proclaim that these figures have been put in this position. We're a neutral source of information and this category is hardly part of that guiding principle in my eyes.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete for similar reasons as in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_26. The risk of tainting a BLP is high. For example Robbie Williams is in this category, but the article indicates he won a libel action on such a topic. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, I thought we had just deleted this category—I see now that it was the political one we did. There really is no reason to keep this one if the political one has been deleted. I agree that it quite a subjective problem in determining when someone becomes a "figure" in an incident and when an incident becomes a "scandal". Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per AllyD and Good Ol’factory, and my comments at the CfD for Cat:Political sex scandal figures. There is no objective test for when a public revelation of someone's sex life becomes a "scandal", and sticking a "scandal" label on a BLP could be very damaging to the person concerned. There's no need for wikipedia to follow the tabloid press down into the gutter. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete In addition to the objections raised above, I feel that this is gratuitous categorization, a problem I believe is rampant in WP. SteveStrummer (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete primarily due to the vagueness of "figures". I'm less concerned right now with the definition of "scandal".  One observation is that without such "scandal figures" categories, articles on individuals tend to get dumped directly in Category:Sex scandals (the walking sex scandal that is Paul Reubens was in there at last glance).  I think those should be reserved only for articles on scandals, as people are not scandals (Paul Reubens notwithstanding), or at most redirects to the relevant section in the individual's biography if there is no standalone article.  If it doesn't merit its own subheader in an article, then the category isn't important enough for that subject.  How 'bout that, eh?  How you like them apples?  postdlf (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite agree. The minimum should be a section in the biography, with a solid reference demonstratng that it was actually being described as a "scandal". (Even for De Sade) AllyD (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The less time we spend determining what is or isn't a scandal, the better. Gobonobo  T C 05:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.